Fishery conservation and management: West Coast States and Western Pacific fisheries— Pelagic, crustacean, bottomfish and seamount groundfish, and precious corals,

[Federal Register: April 19, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 74)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 19067-19069]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr19ap99-11]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR part 660

[I.D. 103098A]

RIN 0648-AL49

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries, Amendment 8; Crustacean Fisheries, Amendment 10; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Amendment 6; Precious Corals Fisheries, Amendment 4

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of agency decision.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the partial approval of a ``comprehensive amendment'' that addresses essential fish habitat (EFH), overfishing definitions, bycatch, fishing sectors, and fishing communities in the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's

[[Page 19068]]

(Council) four fishery management plans.

DATES: This agency decision is effective February 3, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Amendments and Environmental Assessment may be obtained from the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alvin Z. Katekaru, Fishery Management Specialist, Pacific Islands Area Office, NMFS, at 808- 973-2985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson- Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment, immediately publish a document in the Federal Register stating that the amendment is available for public review and comment. On November 5, 1998, NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) of the Western Pacific amendments in the Federal Register and requested public comments through January 4, 1999 (63 FR 59758).

On February 3, 1999, after considering comments received, NMFS partially approved the Western Pacific comprehensive amendment. NMFS approved the definitions of EFH for each of the four FMPs. All of the amendments identify and describe EFH for the species managed under these FMPs. EFH-related research and information needs are consistent with NMFS goals. The non-fishing impacts on EFH are described, and mitigation measures to address adverse impacts of fishing on EFH already implemented are appropriate. No new measures would be practicable at this time. NMFS will work with the Council to better understand and minimize impacts of gear not originating in local fisheries, such as high seas driftnets, trawl gear, and lost fishing line that float into the Council's area from outside the Western Pacific exclusive economic zone. Disapproved sections of the comprehensive amendment include the bycatch provisions of Amendment 6 to the FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, as well as those for Amendment 8 to the Pelagics FMP. Although both amendments adequately describe reporting procedures in place and provide a general description of bycatch, quantification of bycatch by all sectors of the fisheries managed by the Council is needed, as is a description of the adequacy and identification of any shortfalls in the data. Both amendments should include a more detailed discussion of specific measures taken to minimize bycatch and minimize the mortality of bycatch once taken.

Amendment 8 to the Pelagics FMP also fails to address the fact that the catch of sea turtles has remained relatively consistent for the last several years. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to address measures to reduce this take, through modification of gear or fishing effort. There should also be a discussion of data and estimates of seabird incidental catch in the fishery.

Also disapproved were the criteria for identifying when overfishing would occur in the bottomfish, pelagics, and crustaceans fisheries. The Council's use of spawning potential ratio (SPR) percentages or ranges as a proxy for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in determining minimum stock size threshold as described in the amendment is not acceptable. SPR is not an appropriate proxy for MSY, because it does not provide a measure of stock biomass as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to determine the status of each stock. Further, the discussion of these fisheries uses the term ``control rule'' incorrectly. A control rule should contain two elements: A precautionary target (meaning a reference point that is precautionary with respect to the limit reference point and stocks status), which triggers action before the limit reference point is reached, and the action to be taken to expediently control (reduce) fishing mortality if such a point is reached. The identification of fishing communities is acceptable, with the exception of the categorization of the State of Hawaii as a fishing community. This categorization is overly broad. The Council needs to revisit its determination, specifically focusing on the definition of ``fishing community'' in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the requirement to identify communities that are `` * * *substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs * * *'' [Sec. 3(16)]. The NMFS National Standard Guidelines (63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998), further stipulate a fishing community as an economic or social group that resides in a specific location and shares a common dependency on fishing or related fisheries dependent industries and services. Although NMFS recognizes that there are cases in which an island may be appropriately designated as a community, the Council should have provided additional background and analysis to justify the designations. In the case of Hawaii, a more narrow categorization needs to be developed.

Comments and Responses

NMFS received two comments from the Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) during the comment period on the NOA.

Comment 1: The MFCN commented that the comprehensive amendment fails to evaluate the effects of all 35 gear types listed (63 FR 4030, January 27, 1999) as used in the Western Pacific, fails to evaluate the effect of the take of prey species as an effect on EFH, fails to minimize any identified adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH, and fails to establish research closure areas to evaluate further the impacts of fishing activities on EFH.

Response: The amendment focuses on gear types predominantly used in the Western Pacific waters under Federal jurisdiction, the majority of which were defined as EFH. The amendment identifies these gears as longline, handline, troll, all variations of hook-and-line gear, and lobster traps. Examination of catch data from Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands indicates that more than 88 percent (by weight) of the 1997 catch from Federal waters (seaward of state waters) were landed by hook-and-line, longline, and trolling gear. Other gear types such as manned submersibles used to harvest precious corals, or harvest by hand (e.g., spear or small throw net) are unlikely to adversely affect habitat. The actual and potential effects of the predominant fishing gears on habitat within Federal waters were evaluated and found by the Council not to warrant additional measures at this time.

The Council, however, previously took action to minimize the adverse impacts of fishing activities on EFH. For example, the Council evaluated several potentially destructive gear types and banned their use in Federal waters. These include bottomfish trawls, bottom-set gillnets, explosives, poisons, and tangle net dredges. Current Federal regulations also prohibit unattended lobster traps in order to prevent ghost fishing and to minimize the potential for lost gear that could have an adverse effect on EFH.

Regarding the take of prey species resulting from fishing activities, no managed fisheries target such species. Although some prey species are taken as bycatch by tuna purse seiners operating around certain remote U.S. Pacific

[[Page 19069]]

island areas such as Palmyra Atoll, and the islands of Howland, Baker, and Jarvis, the quantity harvested annually is less than 10 mts. NMFS believes that this level of catch of prey species will not have an adverse effect on EFH.

According to NMFS' EFH Guidelines (62 FR 66531, December 19, 1997), the establishment of research closure areas is not a mandatory element of fishery management plans. Even though the Council did not create specific research closure areas, currently established refugia, protected species study zones, and longline closed areas could be used as research closure areas for that purpose under experimental fishing permits.

Comment 2: The MFCN also commented that the comprehensive amendment fails to comply with statutory mandates to create a standardized reporting methodology for bycatch and to minimize to the extent practicable bycatch and bycatch mortality in its fisheries.

Response: NMFS recognized the shortcomings of the sections of the comprehensive amendment regarding bycatch in the bottomfishing and pelagics fisheries and disapproved them. Although the bycatch sections of the crustaceans and precious corals amendments could be strengthened by more specific discussion and analysis of all fishing gears used in the Western Pacific, NMFS has determined that they are adequate, but will work with the Council to improve them. No new management measures to address bycatch appear to be practicable at this time.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 13, 1999. Gary C. Matlock, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 99-9728Filed4-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F